For a conviction under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must prove intent or knowledge of likely harm, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

(Abhay S. Waghwase, J.)

1. In this appeal, there is challenge to the judgment and order dated 31.08.2005 passed by 4th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2005, recording guilt of appellant for offence punishable under section 307 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. Appellant was charge-sheeted on accusations that, he used to beat and ill-treat his wife Rekhabai on trifle counts. Because of such treatment, mother had lodged complaint in the court of Jalgaon. Still, he continued to ill treat her to suspect her character. On 21.12.2004, he laced her glass of water with some tablets and made forcibly drink it, due to which she fell uneasiness and was taken to civil hospital, Dhule, where her statement was recorded by PW3 Virsing and made the basis for registration of crime bearing No.199 of 2004 for offence punishable under sections 498-A, 307 and 323 IPC, which was investigated by PW1 PSI Sushir and after completing investigation and gathering evidence, appellant was charge-sheeted.

Appellant Pralhad was tried vide Sessions Case No.6 of 2005 by 4th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, who accepted the case of prosecution as regards to offence under section 307 IPC only and acquitted him of remaining charge of 498A and 323 IPC.

Feeling aggrieved by the above judgment and order of conviction, instant appeal has been preferred.

SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of Appellant :-

3. Learned counsel would submits that there is false implication due to strained matrimonial relations. That, there was already matrimonial dispute. It is pointed out that, allegations are now raised that poison was administered through drinking water, but it is pointed out that, there is no evidence about administration of poison. Learned counsel submitted that, there is CA report of analysis and stomach wash is negative and therefore this itself had falsified complainant’s version.

4. He further pointed out that, PW2 Priyanka daughter was said to be in the house at the time of alleged incident. She had not seen appellant in the house at that time. That, in her evidence she merely spoke appellant leaving the house. Therefore, no convincing and cogent evidence that, appellant administered poison. He pointed out that, even testimony of daughter PW2 Priyanka is not supported by independent evidence. According to learned counsel, medical expert admitted that, there was no threat to life and so he questions the finding of trial court for offence under section 307 IPC. He submitted that, except evidence of PW2 Priyanka, there is no trustworthy evidence and therefore he questions the findings and conclusions drawn by learned trial court and prays to set aside the same.

On behalf of Respondent :-

5. In answer to above, learned APP pointed out that, appellant husband mal-treated wife and beat her by suspecting her character. Therefore, she had lodged case against him in the court that, on 21.12.2004, he forcibly administered poison in the form of tablets. Daughter PW2 Priyanka, who was in the house and shifted her mother to the hospital has seeing appellant running away after administering poison. Medical experts, who examined Rekhabai noticed sedative being administered. She pointed out that, because quantity was small, chemical analysis was negative. She pointed out that, there is direct eye witness in the form of PW2 Priyanka. That, there is no reason for false implicating father itself. That, she has witnessed to the ill treatment and therefore learned APP submitted that learned trial Judge has correctly relied on the version of PW2 Priyanka and has recorded the guilt and hence according to her, findings and judgments being infallible, the same may not be interfered with.

EVIDENCE BEFORE TRIAL COURT

6. PW1 PSI Sushir, Investigating Officer, who recorded statement of victim (Exh.12) and on its basis registered the crime for offence under sections 307 and 323 IPC.

PW2 Priyanka, daughter of appellant and victim, claims to be present in the hou